What does your physical presence in a room of people say about you? The way you carry yourself, the way you speak, your volume level, your amount of eye contact, your wardrobe, your facial expression, everything.

I’ve been around a lot of people in my career and I’ve always been impressed by people who have an instant presence when they walk into a room. And then they impress even more when they speak.

The advertising industry attracts extreme personalities. Bubbly extroverts, gloomy introverts, arrogant people, shy people, brash and pushy people, and a host of others. There are people who dress like hipsters and people who dress like the janitorial staff. There are smilers, frowners, arguers, whisperers, shouters, jokesters, laughers and painfully awkward people. 

All of these character attributes affect our work. They can hold us back or propel us upward. So when you walk into a room, what’s your presence? When you speak and interact with others, what signals are you sending?

I’ve given this a lot of thought over the years and I’ve taken a lot of mental notes. The things that give people a powerful presence are actually amazingly simple. There’s no voodoo or mystery at all. 

Here is a shortlist of things that I believe make a huge impact on our personal and professional lives. They might seem obvious but, shockingly, most people don’t follow them.

1. Smile. This is one of the most effective weapons in our arsenal. A genuine smile is disarming and friendly. Any tension in the air will immediately dissipate. Plus it’s infectious. It literally compels others to smile back at you. Conversely, a scowl or straight face repels people. It makes them not want to hang out with you after work, because you are presumably a boring or rigid person.

2. Give a firm handshake. It goes without saying, but a firm handshake implies confidence and dependability. To clients it shows you aren’t a pushover. On the flip side, a limp, squishy handshake implies timidity and insecurity. So don’t be afraid to squeeze.

3. Keep good eye contact. It’s easier to do this when you’re listening to someone speak but doing it when you are speaking is powerful. It communicates intensity and conviction. Practice it on your spouse, your friends, your dog, a wall. It’s even more powerful with fewer blinks. One of my good friends uses laser-focused eye contact while he’s speaking and it elevates everything he says. I believe he really means what he says.

4. Give the gift of validation by nodding while others are speaking. It doesn’t necessarily mean you agree, it means you are giving them your full attention and you understand what they are saying. Try this game: next time you’re in a conference room full of people, give validating head nods to the speaker. You will find that their eyes eventually settle on you more than others. This is because you’re giving them what they need: validation. And, surprisingly, I’ve found that it makes it easier to make a rebuttal. Perhaps because they truly feel you heard them thoroughly. After all, most people (especially clients) just want to be heard.

5. Learn the art of small talk. This one didn’t come easy to me. I’ve been shy since childhood. But I’ve learned the power of casual conversation. The key is having something to talk about and there are only three things: (1) Yourself, (2) the other person and (3) topical subjects. It’s easy to talk about yourself but it’s better to get the other person talking about himself/herself. However, the best thing you can do is listen to news radio or read the newspaper (or the online equivalent.) It makes you informed and gives you something to talk about. 

There are many more things you can do, but these five will give your life and career a big boost. If I were to add one more, I would say increase your volume. Many people (including myself) are soft talkers and sometimes get drowned out or interrupted. 

Lastly, the above principles are ultimately only effective if you have something relevant and valuable to contribute. Otherwise, it’s all for nothing. 


-------
Everyone knows that layers in any approval process are bad. Just look at what happens when there are too many layers on the client side. And yet we’ve essentially done the same thing within the agency creative department. We’ve made it extremely difficult for exceptional ideas to make it through unscathed. The ones that do make it through are usually safe and full of compromises.

There was a time not too long ago when the average creative department was flat. There was only one creative director (or sometimes a team of two) and then creatives under him or her. The only delineation between creatives was “junior,” “mid-level” and “senior.” But all of them reported directly to the creative director. 

This worked perfectly because everyone had access to the final decision maker. They could engage in conversation, discussing problems and solutions surrounding the work, and save a lot of time. And there were fewer egos and personal agendas involved.

Now, creative departments are bloated with a lot of layers. Creative work starts at the bottom and must run the gauntlet through ACD’s, CD’s, GCD’s before finally reaching the ECD’s. And sometimes it must be approved by the CCO. It’s reminiscent of a scene out of Indiana Jones, where he had to run through a tunnel filled with flying darts, swinging blades, rolling boulders and trapdoors with wooden spikes. This is how great ideas get ruined.

What’s so wrong with layers? Here are a few things.

1. Human ego compels every person in each layer to add his or her own input to an idea running the gauntlet, often resulting in a Frankenstein. Sometimes ideas are improved along the way but more often they are not. 

2. Without direct access to the decision maker at the top, those on the bottom must try to interpret the feedback from the layer above them, which is often cryptic and contradictory. It’s the classic game of telephone.

3. It puts too many internal reviews in the process. If you are briefed on Monday and the ECD’s want to see ideas on Friday, that means the GCD’s must see it Thursday and the CD’s on Wednesday. And if there are ACD’s, they see it on Tuesday. And who knows when the account people or planners get a peek. Probably at the last minute. All of this reduces actual creative development time down to nothing.

4. It filters out great ideas too soon. Middle management CD’s like to curate. Which basically means to kill. The problem is, nobody’s tastes are identical. The tastes and biases of the ECD’s are guaranteed to be different than the intermediate CD’s. So why filter out work that the ECD might see potential in? 

5. It eliminates discussion and debate. Sometimes an idea needs to be talked out with the ECD’s. They might be on the fence with an idea and a few alterations suggested by the creative team can make the all difference. But that’s virtually impossible when they’re not in the room together.

I know some will disagree with me, but in my experience, layered creative departments are totally counterproductive. It’s no different than having a lot of layers on the client side. And every (every) creative murmurs and complains about that.

So where did these layers come from? How did this trend start? Personally, I began to see it about 10-15 years ago. I believe they started appearing and multiplying when agency chiefs discovered that promoting people with titles was an effective substitute for pay raises, and it helped keep creatives from getting lured away by other shops. 

Unfortunately, we’ve painted ourselves into a corner. Every agency has embraced this system and it’s become standard. So these layers are here to stay. The question is, where can we go from here?

Here’s one solution that I believe would make all the difference in the world: Collective CD reviews.

It would work like this... schedule one creative review with every CD-level person in attendance. CD’s, GCD’s and ECD’s. One by one, each creative team comes into the room and presents their work (or collectively with all teams together). Then everyone can make comments and have their say. And the creative team can defend their work and suggest solutions to problems, right on the spot. This way, everyone will truly share ownership and huge amounts of time will be saved.

It’s true, nobody likes big meetings with lots of people. Especially executive creatives. Probably because it’s far easier to kill work when the creatives are not in the room. However, creatives are actually more satisfied and less bitter when the ECD explains why their idea isn’t working. And they develop a much greater respect for the ECD because they say it to their face, with honesty and directness. Plus the creatives get some closure.

This method would lead to (A) better communication, (B) greater understanding, (C) less bitterness, and (D) better work. Streamlining the process can only have a positive impact.

A few years back, when I worked at Media Arts Lab, every creative presented directly to Lee Clow. Even the creative interns. The other executive creatives were standing there as well. It was a group of people roving around a room full of work. And it worked brilliantly. If Lee didn’t like an idea, you heard directly from him. And you could defend your work. Rarely did it change his mind, but at least you were allowed to speak up and hear his feedback in person.

One last thing. In the layered system, there’s a false assumption that a CD must always make a comment or request a change, even if the idea is just fine as is. And that’s totally understandable. It’s natural to desire to make your stamp. And to feel like you’re actually contributing something. But, just know, it’s okay to like something just as it is. You share ownership if you simply champion it. I believe it shows real maturity and confidence when you resist the urge to meddle unnecessarily.

-------

Addendum

I’ve received some great feedback since posting this blog entry yesterday. One comment from my friend, Annie, provided some more insight. She said: 

“I think one of the issues for these layers is salary requirements. Big agencies can't justify (anymore) the $200k+ salaries to a Senior Writer. The bean counters have to say, ‘oh, this person is important and valued, so they get a title that allows for the inflated salary.’ Titles over the decades have become very important to creatives, too. 'Look what I accomplished Mom by going to that art school!'"

Thanks, Annie, for sharing your perspective. It makes sense. In some cases, the bean counters have had a part to play in multiplying these titles and layers. Which is really a shame, since it has affected the process and the work. 

Of course there are some people out there who will say, “I got promoted with a title but never saw a salary increase!” To which I say, squeak louder and more often.


-------

Probably every art director working in advertising right now has asked himself/herself, “Why didn’t I choose to be a writer instead?”

As an art director, I’ve probably spent most of my career comping. And most of that time has been spent looking for images. It’s a sad reality and one of the reasons that I’ve become disillusioned with advertising over the years. 

Presentations have increasingly relied upon amazing layouts to dazzle clients. In my early years in the business (in the mid-nineties), it was still acceptable to present sketched comps to clients. This was great because everyone’s attention would be focused on the idea itself. It was impossible to trick any client into buying a weak idea that was obscured by beautiful eye candy.

Nowadays, if you walk into a meeting with simple sketched ideas, the reception is likely to be flat. Everyone expects finished-looking comps.

It’s only natural to try to find someone to blame for this trend. But if you ask me, we art directors can only blame ourselves. 

As highly visual people, we understood the power of beautiful visuals and we used them to gain an advantage. We discovered that our visual powers of persuasion even worked on seasoned creative directors who should have been able to see past pretty pictures, but were swayed anyway. We competitively out-comped the other art directors when multiple teams were assigned to the same project. We stayed up later and later to craft our layouts. And it worked. Our work stood out.

But look where we are now. Everyone expects luscious, high-res comps and incredible graphic design. If we have three days to develop ideas for a creative brief, we spend one day concepting and two days comping. We spend less time brainstorming ideas and more time scouring the web for great images. This has led to weaker (but prettier) ads.

I don’t think we can put the genie back into the bottle. What’s done is done. We can only look forward. The future lies in ad agencies building studios full of young graphic designers that specialize in making stuff pretty, so art directors can spend their time directing not designing. This is how it’s typically done at agencies in London. And at certain agencies like Wieden+Kennedy (or so I hear).

I do think it’s a valuable skill to be able to craft beautiful stuff. It’s empowering. But it doesn’t make bad ideas better. Sometimes it’s only a façade that hides shallow work.

I would love to see creative directors try something refreshing. Instead of expecting highly produced comps when reviewing ideas internally, CD’s should demand to see only sketched comps. It’s a true test of the power of an idea. The make-up and lipstick can come later.

I’d also love to see agencies remake their studios by filling them with young, talented graphic designers who are dedicated to comping. Perhaps treat it as a bootcamp for newbies, who eventually transition out of it and become fully-fledged art directors (knowing that it’s not very rewarding to spend your time “wristing” other people’s ideas, so nobody wants to do it for very long.)

Things won’t really change until CD’s start demanding changes. Demanding that their art directors spend more time concepting with their writer partners. Demanding more emphasis on raw ideas. Demanding that they stop using beautiful layouts as a crutch.

If you’re a young art director in school and you also happen to be a decent writer, you might consider switching to being a copywriter. You’ll have more of a life. You’ll go home from work earlier. You’ll get more time with your wife and family. You’ll get more sleep.

On the other hand, as an art director, you’re kind of a one man/woman band. Often I’ve worked alone because my writer partner was on vacation or unavailable. And I managed pretty well, since I was able to use my design skills to bring ideas to life singlehandedly. 

Whichever way you look at it, I believe art directors are the hardest working people in advertising. That is, if you measure it by perspiration instead of inspiration. Too bad the majority of ideas never see the light of day. That’s a lot of man hours spent making beautiful clay pigeons. 

-------